seven discourses on art-第8章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


ration　for　the　character　of　the　hero　or　saint　he　represents；　though　he　lets　us　know　at　the　same　time　that　the　saint　was　deformed；　or　the　hero　lame。　　The　painter　has　no　other　means　of　giving　an　idea　of　the　dignity　of　the　mind；　but　by　that　external　appearance　which　grandeur　of　thought　does　generally；　though　not　always；　impress　on　the　countenance；　and　by　that　correspondence　of　figure　to　sentiment　and　situation　which　all　men　wish；　but　cannot　command。　　The　painter；　who　may　in　this　one　particular　attain　with　ease　what　others　desire　in　vain；　ought　to　give　all　that　he　possibly　can；　since　there　are　so　many　circumstances　of　true　greatness　that　he　cannot　give　at　all。　　He　cannot　make　his　hero　talk　like　a　great　man；　he　must　make　him　look　like　one。　　For　which　reason　he　ought　to　be　well　studied　in　the　analysis　of　those　circumstances　which　constitute　dignity　of　appearance　in　real　life。

As　in　invention；　so　likewise　in；　expression；　care　must　be　taken　not　to　run　into　particularities；　Those　expressions　alone　should　be　given　to　the　figures　which　their　respective　situations　generally　produce。　　Nor　is　this　enough；　each　person　should　also　have　that　expression　which　men　of　his　rank　generally　exhibit。　　The　joy　or　the　grief　of　a　character　of　dignity　is　not　to　be　expressed　in　the　same　manner　as　a　similar　passion　in　a　vulgar　face。　　Upon　this　principle　Bernini；　perhaps；　may　be　subject　to　censure。　　This　sculptor；　in　many　respects　admirable；　has　given　a　very　mean　expression　to　his　statue　of　David；　who　is　represented　as　just　going　to　throw　the　stone　from　the　sling；　and　in　order　to　give　it　the　expression　of　energy　he　has　made　him　biting　his　under…lip。　　This　expression　is　far　from　being　general；　and　still　farther　from　being　dignified。　　He　might　have　seen　it　in　an　instance　or　two；　and　he　mistook　accident　for　universality。

With　respect　to　colouring；　though　it　may　appear　at　first　a　part　of　painting　merely　mechanical；　yet　it　still　has　its　rules；　and　those　grounded　upon　that　presiding　principle　which　regulates　both　the　great　and　the　little　in　the　study　of　a　painter。　　By　this；　the　first　effect　of　the　picture　is　produced；　and　as　this　is　performed　the　spectator；　as　he　walks　the　gallery；　will　stop；　or　pass　along。　　To　give　a　general　air　of　grandeur　at　first　view；　all　trifling　or　artful　play　of　little　lights　or　an　attention　to　a　variety　of　tints　is　to　be　avoided；　a　quietness　and　simplicity　must　reign　over　the　whole　work；　to　which　a　breadth　of　uniform　and　simple　colour　will　very　much　contribute。　　Grandeur　of　effect　is　produced　by　two　different　ways；　which　seem　entirely　opposed　to　each　other。　　One　is；　by　reducing　the　colours　to　little　more　than　chiaroscuro；　which　was　often　the　practice　of　the　Bolognian　schools；　and　the　other；　by　making　the　colours　very　distinct　and　forcible；　such　as　we　see　in　those　of　Rome　and　Florence；　but　still；　the　presiding　principle　of　both　those　manners　is　simplicity。　　Certainly；　nothing　can　be　more　simple　than　monotony；　and　the　distinct　blue；　red；　and　yellow　colours　which　are　seen　in　the　draperies　of　the　Roman　and　Florentine　schools；　though　they　have　not　that　kind　of　harmony　which　is　produced　by　a　variety　of　broken　and　transparent　colours；　have　that　effect　of　grandeur　that　was　intended。　　Perhaps　these　distinct　colours　strike　the　mind　more　forcibly；　from　there　not　being　any　great　union　between　them；　as　martial　music；　which　is　intended　to　rouse　the　noble　passions；　has　its　effect　from　the　sudden　and　strongly　marked　transitions　from　one　note　to　another；　which　that　style　of　music　requires；　whilst　in　that　which　is　intended　to　move　the　softer　passions　the　notes　imperceptibly　melt　into　one　another。

In　the　same　manner　as　the　historical　painter　never　enters　into　the　detail　of　colours；　so　neither　does　he　debase　his　conceptions　with　minute　attention　to　the　discriminations　of　drapery。　　It　is　the　inferior　style　that　marks　the　variety　of　stuffs。　　With　him；　the　clothing　is　neither　woollen；　nor　linen；　nor　silk；　satin；　or　velvet：　it　is　drapery；　it　is　nothing　more。　　The　art　of　disposing　the　foldings　of　the　drapery　make　a　very　considerable　part　of　the　painter's　study。　　To　make　it　merely　natural　is　a　mechanical　operation；　to　which　neither　genius　or　taste　are　required；　whereas；　it　requires　the　nicest　judgment　to　dispose　the　drapery；　so　that　the　folds　have　an　easy　communication；　and　gracefully　follow　each　other；　with　such　natural　negligence　as　to　look　like　the　effect　of　chance；　and　at　the　same　time　show　the　figure　under　it　to　the　utmost　advantage。

Carlo　Maratti　was　of　opinion　that　the　disposition　of　drapery　was　a　more　difficult　art　than　even　that　of　drawing　the　human　figure；　that　a　student　might　be　more　easily　taught　the　latter　than　the　former；　as　the　rules　of　drapery；　he　said；　could　not　be　so　well　ascertained　as　those　for　delineating　a　correct　form；　This；　perhaps；　is　a　proof　how　willingly　we　favour　our　own　peculiar　excellence。　　Carlo　Maratti　is　said　to　have　valued　himself　particularly　upon　his　skill　in　this　part　of　the　art　yet　in　him　the　disposition　appears　so　artificial；　that　he　is　inferior　to　Raffaelle；　even　in　that　which　gave　him　his　best　claim　to　reputation

Such　is　the　great　principle　by　which　we　must　be　directed　in　the　nobler　branches　of　our　art。　　Upon　this　principle　the　Roman；　the　Florentine；　the　Bolognese　schools；　have　formed　their　practice；　and　by　this　they　have　deservedly　obtained　the　highest　praise。　　These　are　the　three　great　schools　of　the　world　in　the　epic　style。　　The　best　of　the　French　school；　Poussin；　Le　Sueur；　and　Le　Brun；　have　formed　themselves　upon　these　models；　and　consequently　may　be　said；　though　Frenchmen；　to　be　a　colony　from　the　Roman　school。　　Next　to　these；　but　in　a　very　different　style　of　excellence；　we　may　rank　the　Venetian；　together　with　the　Flemish　and　the　Dutch　schools；　all　professing　to　depart　from　the　great　purposes　of　painting；　and　catching　at　applause　by　inferior　qualities。

I　am　not　ignorant　that　some　will　censure　me　for　placing　the　Venetians　in　this　inferior　class；　and　many　of　the　warmest　admirers　of　painting　will　think　them　unjustly　degraded；　but　I　wish　not　to　be　misunderstood。　　Though　I　can　by　no　means　allow　them　to　hold　any　rank　with　the　nobler　schools　of　painting；　they　accomplished　perfectly　the　thing　they　attempted。　　But　as　mere　elegance　is　their　principal　object；　as　they　seem　more　willing　to　dazzle　than　to　affect；　it　can　be　no　injury　to　them　to　suppose　that　their　practice　is　useful　only　to　its　proper　end。　　But　what　may　heighten　the　elegant　may　degrade　the　sublime。　　There　is　a　simplicity；　and　I　may　add；　severity；　in　the　great　manner；　which　is；　I　am　afraid；　almost　incompatible　with　this　comparatively　sensual　style。

Tintoret；　Paul　Veronese；　and　others　of　the　Venetian　schools；　seem　to　have　painted　with　no　other　purpose　than　to　be　admired　for　their　skill　and　expertness　in　the　mechanism　of　painting；　and　to　make　a　parade　of　that　art　which；　as　I　before　observed；　the　higher　style　requires　its　followers　to　conceal。

In　a　conference　of　the　French　Academy；　at　which　were　present　Le　Brun；　Sebastian　Bourdon；　and　all　the　eminent　artists　of　that　age；　one　of　the　academicians　desired　to　have　their　opinion　on　the　conduct　of　Paul　Veronese；　who；　though　a　painter　of　great　consideration；　had；　contrary　to　the　strict　rules　of　art；　in　his　picture　of　Perseus　and　Andromeda；　represented　the　principal　figure　in　shade。　　To　this　question　no　satisfactory　answer　was　then　given。　But　I　will　venture　to　say；　that　if　they　had　considered　the　class　of　the　artist；　and　ranked　him　as　an　ornamental　painter；　there　would　have　been　no　difficulty　in　answering：　　〃It　was　unreasonable　to　expect　what　was　never　intended。　　His　intention　was　solely　to　produce　an　effect　of　light　and　Shadow；　everything　was　to　be　sacrificed　to　that　intent；　and　the　capricious　composition　of　that　picture　suited　very　well　with　the　style　he　professed。〃

Young　minds　are　indeed　too　apt　to　be　captivated　by　this　splendour　of　style；　and　that　of　the　Venetians　will　be　particularly　pleasing；　for　by　them　all　those　parts　of　the　art　that　give　pleasure　to　the　eye　or　sense　have　been　cultivated　with　care；　and　carried　to　the　degree　nearest　to　perfection。　　The　powers　exerted　in　the　mechanical　part　of　the　art　have　been　called　the　language　of　painters；　but　we　must　say；　that　it　is　but　poor　eloquence　which　only　shows　that　the　orator　can　talk。　　Words　should　be　employed　as　the　means；　not　as　the　end：　　language　is　the　instrument；　conviction　is　the　work。

The　language　of　painting　must　indeed　be　allowed　these　masters；　but　even　in　that　they　have　shown　more　copiousness　than　choice；　and　more　luxuriancy　than　judgment。　　If　we　consider　the　uninteresting　subjects　of　their　invention；　or　at　least　the　uninteresting　manner　in　which　they　are　treated；　if　we　attend　to　their　capricious　composition；　their　violent　and　affected　contrasts；　whether　of　figures；　or　of　light　and　shadow；　the　richness　of　their　drapery；　and；　at　the　same　time；　the　mean　effect　which　the　discrimination　of　stuffs　gives　to　their　pictures；　if　to　these　we　add　their　total　inattention　to　expression；　and　then　reflect　on　the　conceptions　and　the　learning　of　Michael　Angelo；　or　the　simplicity　of　Raffaelle；　we　can　no　longer　dwell　on　the　comparison。　　Even　in　colouring；　if　we　compare　the　quietness　and　chastity　of　the　Bolognese　pencil　to　the　bustle　and　tumult　that　fills　every　part　of；　a　Venetian　picture；　without　the　least　attempt　to　interest　the　passions；　their　boasted　art　will　appear　a　mere　struggle　without　effect；　an　empty　tale　told　by　an　idiot；　full　of　sound　and　fury；　signifying　nothing。

Such　as　suppose　that　the　great　style　might　happily　be　blended　with　the　ornamental；　that　the　simple；　grave；　and　majestic　dignity　of　Raffaelle　could　unite　with　the　glow　and　bustle　of　a　Paulo　or　Tintoret；　are　totally　mistaken。　　The　principles　by　which　each　are　attained　are　so　contrary　to　each　other；　that　they　seem；　in　my　opinion；　incompatible；　and　as　impossible　to　exist　together；　as　to　unite　in　the　mind　at　the　same　time　the　most　sublime　ideas　and　the　lowest　sensuality。

The　subjects　of　the　Venetian　painters　are　mostly　such　as　give　them　an　opportunity　of　introducing　a　great　number　of　figures；　such　as　feasts；　marriages；　and　processions；　public　martyrdoms；　or　miracles。　I　can　easily　conceive　that　Paul　Veronese；　if　he　were　asked；　would　say　that　no　subject　was　proper　for　an　historical　picture　but　such　as　admitted　at　least　forty　figures；　for　in　a　less　number；　he　would　assert；　there　could　be　no　opportunity　of　the　painter's　showing　his　art　in　composition；　his　dexterity　of　managing　and　disposing　the　masses　of　light；　and　groups　of　figures；　and　of　introducing　a　variety　of　Eastern　dresses　and　characters　in　their　rich　stuffs。

But　the　thing　is　very　different　with　a　pupil　of　the　greater　schools。　　Annibale　Caracci　thought　twelve　figures　sufficient　for　any　story：　　he　conceived　that　more　would　contribute　to　no　end　but　to　fill　space；　that　they　would；　be　but　cold　spectators　of　the　general　action；　or；　to　use　his　own　expression；　that　they　would　be　figures　to　be　let。　　Besides；　it　is　impossible　for　a　picture　composed　of　so　many　parts　to　have　that　effect；　so　indispensably　necessary　to　grandeur；　of　one　complete　whole。　　However　contradictory　it　may　be　in　geometry；　it　is　true　in　taste；　that　many　little　things　will　not　make　a　great　one。　　The　sublime　impresses　the　mind　at　once　with　one　great　idea；　it　is　a　single　blow：　　the　elegant